The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article is new and, though just barely long enough, feels comprehensive. I felt a bit uneasy about using the word "martyr" in Wikipedia voice, but I see it in the cited peer-reviewed journal article, so I can only suppose that it does not affect neutrality. I see some issues with the hook. Firstly, the hook, written as it is, does not strike me as something that would attract much attention. Secondly, WP:SCHOLARSHIP states that "masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence". Thirdly, I do not see the term "overly rose-tinted view" in the cited source. Therefore I would suggest rewording the hook or proposing another. Surtsicna (talk) 10:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the review @Surtsicna: - I'll suggest another hook in the next few days, if you're OK to wait. Just to comment on the "overly rose-tinted view", I checked and the text says "has donned extremely rose coloured glasses of the artist since" (p.9), so I've modified the article. Lajmmoore (talk) 13:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Sure, we are in no hurry. Surtsicna (talk) 13:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
ALT1 ... that Adila Laïdi-Hanieh uses digital archiving and engagement as methods "to narrate the history of Palestine"? Khader, Deama. "Terminally Ill Documents: The Lasting Impact of Ephemera." Proceedings from the Document Academy 9.2 (2022): 12.
You are on a good track, Lajmmoore. I would suggest writing that in plain English. Instead of "digital engagement", can we say that she managed to keep her exhibitions open during the pandemic by presenting them via videos? This article that you cited seems to say that. Surtsicna (talk) 11:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
How about the above for an ALT2 @Surtsicna:? Lajmmoore (talk) 12:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
That's good. I like that. Let's go! Surtsicna (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
I have pulled this nom from prep as the hook is sourced to Middle East Monitor, a pro-Hamas site funded by Qatar and reportedly a promoter of antisemitism. A couple of other sources in the article (a thesis, a piece from a university repository) look a tad ropey as well. Additionally, the word "martyr" in the article is clearly POV. This nom is going to have to wait until I can find the time to look more closely at the sourcing. Gatoclass (talk) 08:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Comment - I double checked if there was a ban on MEM, but there doesn't seem to be a consensus on its reliability (here). What I missed when I first looked was a request for attribution, which I've now added to the article. I've also added a second source for the Order of Merit Lajmmoore (talk) 08:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Lajmmoore, having reviewed the RS discussions and noting the lack of consensus for the proposal that MEM is unreliable, I am fine with it being used here as a source for non-controversial content, and I don't think it needs attribution in this context. However, I still don't want to see it used as a source for the hook, as some users may object to that and we could do without the drama.
Other than that, neither hook is very interesting either. In reviewing the sources, I noticed that one or the other mentions Hanieh's goal of preserving endangered Palestinian history, which seems to me a much more interesting fact. If you could add that to the article with an appropriate source, it would make for a much more interesting hook IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 07:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
ALT2 ... that Adila Laïdi-Hanieh and her team used digitisation to preserve endangered Palestinian material culture? "Laïdi-Hanieh then asserts that the museum does “not have to keep physical archives. Rather, we borrow endangered collections, conserve and digitize them, upload them to an open-access platform, and then return them to their owners. One solution [to disappearance] is digitization." Khader, Deama. "Terminally Ill Documents: The Lasting Impact of Ephemera." Proceedings from the Document Academy 9.2 (2022): 12.
The article is new and, though just barely long enough, feels comprehensive. I felt a bit uneasy about using the word "martyr" in Wikipedia voice, but I see it in the cited peer-reviewed journal article, so I can only suppose that it does not affect neutrality. I see some issues with the hook. Firstly, the hook, written as it is, does not strike me as something that would attract much attention. Secondly, WP:SCHOLARSHIP states that "masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence". Thirdly, I do not see the term "overly rose-tinted view" in the cited source. Therefore I would suggest rewording the hook or proposing another. Surtsicna (talk) 10:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
I have pulled this nom from prep as the hook is sourced to Middle East Monitor, a pro-Hamas site funded by Qatar and reportedly a promoter of antisemitism. A couple of other sources in the article (a thesis, a piece from a university repository) look a tad ropey as well. Additionally, the word "martyr" in the article is clearly POV. This nom is going to have to wait until I can find the time to look more closely at the sourcing. Gatoclass (talk) 08:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
ALT2 verified. Gatoclass (talk) 15:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)